521–530 of 1001 posts
The root issue is that health insurance is tied to employment, which reduces human freedom and distorts the economy in diverse ways.
Solve the root issue and many things become less complicated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The heart of the issue is big labor unions want more power, and independent contractor status is a threat to their power.
Labor unions in the US are comparatively powerless next to countries with actual, functional unions that are quite capable of striking, and have little lobby. No, the heart of the issue is definitely the dismal state of health care in the US.
Teachers Unions, UAW, and the AFLCIO are pretty much the strongest lobbies in America.
We had this same thing happen in Austin when Uber and Lyft pulled out after having a hissy fit about fingerprinting and background checks and not parking in the bus lanes. As soon as they pulled out half a dozen alternatives sprung up that paid better (I always used Ride Austin, a not-for-profit). If you're a rider just take the bus, bike, or get any other cab service (seriously, they all have apps now and they maint…
With the new requirements in place (e.g. actually hiring employees and providing benefits) the barrier to entry here is waaaaay higher than before. I would argue Ride Austin would have never even started (especially as a non profit) if these requirements were in place the last time Uber/Lyft shut down in Austin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Drivers choose to make their living with Lyft and Uber. California is starting to feel the repercussions of their far left policies. It hurts consumers (fare prices rise), stifles innovation, pushes entrepreneurs out of the state, and the irony is it ended up hurting the drivers.
Lyft _chose_ to hurt the drivers instead of complying with the law. This is a transparent ploy by Lyft and Uber to try and extort the state into changing the law by holding their drivers' livelihoods ransom.
If Lyft and Uber want to back up their claims that they aren't livery services but simply a technology platform, then there should be no problem with eliminating the independent contractor drivers.
The fact that they have to "shut down" only proves they were misrepresenting drivers for as long as they have existed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem in SF is that Uber/Lyft has become some convenient that its been diverting people from transit and putting them into single occupant cars (the driver doens't count). Much of the traffic congestion is coming from Uber/Lyft
I think some kind of SF congestion tax, with proceeds to benefit public transit infrastructure, would be appropriate.
Not sure how to handle the fact that this de-facto subsidizes the Peninsula. But it would be a start.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their business model is on-demand transportation. The business model doesn't work if the workforce is not also on-demand. I don't think that's spin, but maybe society decides that we don't like on-demand businesses.
The state doesn't need to allow a business to continue just because they invented a business model that requires exploitative labor practices. Whether Lyft can exist is not an aspect that enters into labor law.
If prices were to go up, sure, Lyft would have less business, but presumably there is some price point that pays drivers enough and also makes the economics work for Lyft.
We had this same thing happen in Austin when Uber and Lyft pulled out after having a hissy fit about fingerprinting and background checks and not parking in the bus lanes. As soon as they pulled out half a dozen alternatives sprung up that paid better (I always used Ride Austin, a not-for-profit). If you're a rider just take the bus, bike, or get any other cab service (seriously, they all have apps now and they maint…
There's no objective "better" here. Some drivers may have done better with higher fares being passed onto them. On the other hand, 59% of Lyft/Uber riders ceased to use ride-hailing services.
There CSAT wasn't that great either; ride volume of competitors dropped significantly (Ride Austin lost 55% of riders within a week of Uber and Lyft returning).
The fundamental problem we have here is that pricing is being set by a heavily competitive market-place -- the clearance wage however is below what many see as a living wage. The most just thing to do may be to introduce a pricing floor (raise fares and raise driver income/benefits), but it's important to be honest about the trade-offs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I keep paying my health insurance premium at my home country just because the health insurance in the US is completely broken. I feel that if you get seriously sick in the US you're in an almost sure path to financial insolvency. My employer pays probably a shit ton of money for my health insurance and what I get is the most subpar, confusing, broken and sometimes blatantly extortive service ever. I live in Austin an…
>>I live in Austin and sometimes I think if I really need a major procedure it would be just simpler to drive to Mexico it is amazing what a Free market would bring right? Instead in the US we have this flawed belief that more government is what we need to solve healthcare never understanding that Government is the source of the problem
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who forced Lyft to shut down? Was it the state, or did they freely choose to cease operations? Obviously, spin will characterize this in any way that's advantageous. But nobody 'forced' Lyft to close.
The state made their business model illegal. Yes, technically that’s not the same thing as shutting them down, since they could have switched to a different business model, but it’s a distinction without a difference.